GospelImagesofJesusChristinChurchTraditionandBiblicalScholarship

ThecrucifiedChristandthesilenceofGod:
ThoughtsontheChristologyoftheGospelofMark
ByTobiasNicklas(Regensburg)1

ItiswellknownthatthegospelofMark,likelycomposedintheyearsaroundor
shortlyafterthedestructionofJerusalem,isprobablytheoldestwrittenattemptofa
narrativedepictionofthelifeandministryofJesus.Eveniftheauthor,aChristianof
(atleast)thesecondgeneration,mighthavemadeuseofearlywrittensources,andthe
Jesusstorywascontinuallyretoldinhistime,theachievementoftheevangelistcan
hardlybeunderestimated.2 Toappreciatethechristologicalprofileofthetextcan,
therefore,notonlymeantodiscusstherespectiveuseofvariouschristologicaltitles,
butalsotoanalyzethequestionhowasa narrative thetextmanagestopresentthe
goodnewsofJesustheChrist(andSonofGod)3(Mk1:1).
ThefollowingattemptofapproachingtheChristologyofthegospelofMarkisbased
onthefinalformofthetext.Thisofcoursedoesnotmeanacategoricalrejectionof
diachronic considerations, but it is secondary to my question, which wants to
understandthegospelofMarkasafinalproduct.4
1.Mk1:115ThepreparationforJesusministry
It is quite clear that Mk 1:115 already forms the decisive trajectory for the
understandingofChristinthegospelofMark:fromherethethreadsbeginthatrun
throughthewholeofthegospel,whichonlyfindtheirendinthefinalchapters.
ThequestionifMk1:1belongstotheoriginalgospel(andifso,inwhatpreciseform)
iscontested.5ThecoreofwhatthegospelofMarkisgettingat,however,hasalready
beentouchedwiththis:itentailsthegoodnewsofandaboutJesusofNazareth,who
1

TranslatedfromtheGermanbyChristophOchs.
AbriefpresentationofmythoughtsontheChristologyofMark,intendedforawideraudience,has
beenpublishedinT.Nicklas,WerwarJesusvonNazareth?JesusimSpiegelderEvangelien,in
Jesusbegegnen:ZugngezurChristologie (eds.G.Hotze,T.Nicklas,M.TombergandJ.H.Tck;
TheologischeModule;Freiburg:Herder,2009),778,here3750;thoughitdoesnotfullydevelop
someofthethoughtsIdeemimportant.
3
ThequestionifMk1:1originallycontainedthewordsui`ou/ qeou/isatextcriticalissuethatcan
hardly be resolved, but it is not really relevant for the following discussion. See A. Y. Collins,
EstablishingtheText:Mark1:1,in TextsandContexts:TheFunctionofBiblicalTextsinTheir
TextualandSituationalContexts (eds.T.Fornberg and D. Hellholm,Oslo:Aschehoug,1995),111
127,orP.M.Head,ATextCriticalStudyofMark1:1:TheBeginningoftheGospelofJesusChrist,
NTS37(1991):621629,whobothregardtheshorterformofthetextasmoreoriginal.
4
For the significance of such an approach to the gospel of Mark cf. already F. Hahn, Einige
berlegungenzugegenwrtigenAufgabenderMarkusinterpretation[1985]in StudienzumNeuen
TestamentI:Grundsatzfragen,Jesusforschung,Evangelien(ed.F.Hahn;WUNT191;Tbingen:Mohr
Siebeck,2006),385407,here388f.
5
Cf. e.g. D. Lhrmann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), who
considersMk1:1tobesecondary.EvenfurtheristhequestionofJ.K.Elliott,Mark1.13ALater
AdditiontotheGospel?,NTS46(2000):584588.
2

hasbecomeknownastheChrist(resp.SonofGod). 6Thegoodnews,ontheother
hand,isneitherfullycompletednorisitdrawntoacloseinthegospelofMarkwith
itsopenending.Itonlybeginshere.7However,whereMk1:1isonlyunderstoodas
thecontent,information,ormoreorlessselfevidentformulaofabasicChristian
creed;thatJesusisChrist;itsmeaningisessentiallyalreadyunderappreciated.To
speakofJesusastheChrist(andSonofGod),isatbestanappropriateframeworkfor
whatfollows,aframeworkthatstillhastobefilledwithwhatisabouttobenarrated. 8
Perhapstosayitmoreclearly:todesignatethefigureofJesusofNazarethasChrist
(resp. Son of God) can mean quite different things since the term Christ or
Messiah(andlikewiseSonofGod)issemanticallyunspecificthemanifoldearly
Jewishexpectationsforananointedhavebeenwellknownforalongtime. 9Butthis
alsoallowsforunderstandingMk1:1asabigriddle.Thedecisivequestionthatposes
itselftothereaders(orinmyopinionshould)ishoworinwhatmannerJesushasto
beunderstoodastheChristorSonofGod.Asecondquestionfollows:howfarcan
whatissaidbyoraboutJesusbeunderstoodasgospel,goodnews?Also,sinceitis
knownthatinthetimeofthetextscompositionthetermgospelreverberateswith
twoassociations,ontheonehandthewellknownbackgroundoftheRomanemperor
cult,andontheotheritsuseintheSeptuagintofIsaiah(Isa52:7;60:6,61:1). 10 In
particulartheintertextuallinktoIsaiah52:7surelyprovidesafirstanswer:thegood
newsreferredtoheredealswiththeJesusproclaimedroyalruleofGod(cf.Mk1:15),
whichinthegospeliscloselytiedtoJesus.Withthistheabovementioned,second
questioncanalsoberephrased:howisGodsroyalrule,whichisproclaimedinthe
text,andwhichissocloselytiedtotheappearanceofJesus,actuallyrealized?
Mythesis,whichIattempttoelaborateinwhatfollows,isthatthetwoquestions
abovecanonlybeansweredifthefinaltextofMarkisunderstoodasasensibly
arrangedunitinwhichthevariousintraandintertextuallinksaretakenseriously.
6

J.Gnilka,DasEvangeliumnachMarkus(Mk1,18,26)(EKKII/1;3rded.;Zurich/NeukirchenVluyn:
Neukirchener,1989),42f.writes:Verse1isasummaryoftheentireworkofMark,notthetitleof
thebook,butthedesignationofitscontent(translatedfromtheGerman).
7
WiththisInotonlytakeMk1:1tobetheheadingofMk1:115alone,butofthewholegospel,
whichatthesametime,inturn,isconceivedasanopentext.Asimilarlyformulatedideawasproposed
by J.Marcus, Mark 18, (AB 27; New Haven/London: Doubleday, 2000),146, similar also P.G.
Klumbies,DerMythosbeiMarkus(BZNW108;Berlin/NewYork:deGruyter,2001),158f.However,
different (and quite polemic against this view) M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine
EvangeliumvonJesusChristus:StudienzuihrerSammlungundEntstehung(WUNT224,Tbingen:
MohrSiebeck,2008),160f.[cf.idem, TheFourGospelsandtheOneGospelofJesusChrist(trans.
JohnBowden;London:SCM,2000),91f;theGermanoriginal isprobablymorepolemicthanthe
Englishtranslation;translatorsnote].
8
I,therefore,thinkthatthesignificanceofMk1:1isnotfullyappreciated,whene.g.L.Schenke,Das
MarkusevangeliumLiterarischeEigenartTextundKommentierung(Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,2005),
44,writes:ThebooktitleensuresthatthereaderisalreadyawareaboutwhoJesusreallyis,even
beforebeginningtoreadthetext(translatedfromtheGerman).Iwouldprefertosaythatthereader
isinformedaboutbywhattitlesJesuscanbeappropriatelydesignated,thoughhestilldoesnotknow
morethanPeterinMk8:20,andcanstillcompletelymisunderstandthefigureofJesus.
9
EspeciallyprovocativehereJ.Neusner,W.S.Green,andE.S.Frerichs(eds.), Judaismsandtheir
Messiahsat theTurnof theChristianEra (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1987).More
recentcf.e.g.thecomplexpresentationbySt.Schreiber,GesalbterundKnig:TitelundKonzeptionen
der kniglichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frhjdischen und urchristlichen Schriften, (BZNW 105;
Berlin/NewYork:deGruyter,2000).
10
Moreinformationcanessentiallybefoundinanyofthemoreimportantintroductoryworksofthe
NewTestament.Cf.e.g.I.BroerandH.U.Weidemann, EinleitungindasNeueTestament (3rded.;
Wrzburg:Echter,2010),2733.

The gospel of Mark is, as such, more than merely the superficial redaction and
compositionofvariousoriginalsinglestoriesthataremoreorlessunrelated(and
essentiallycouldberearranged):onlywhenviewedinitstotalityisadeepanddeeply
challenginganswerofferedforthequestionsposedbyMk1:1(and1:14f).
Thefirstkeyscenesfollow:JohntheBaptistis,basedonMal3:1,23,probablyabove
allunderstoodasthereturningElijah,thewaymakeroftheLord,whodescribesthe
onecomingafterhimprimarilyastheinfinitelysuperiorSpiritbaptizer(Mk1:8),
with whose recognition the recognition of Christ is ultimately connected. 11 It is
generally known that for the baptism scene in Mark (Mk 1:911) several Old
Testamentpassagesareimportant:12TheheavenlyvoiceisaclearmarkerofPs2:7,
andaverylikelyareferencetoIsa42:1.13ThedescentoftheSpiritontheonewho
subsequentlyproclaims thegospelreminds oneofIsa61:1,wheretheanointed
spiritendowedspeakerproclaimsgoodnews.
ItisnowdebatableifthebaptismsceneinMarkpresupposesthatJesus,whojust
came fromNazareth(avpo. Nazare,t),is adoptedas SonofGodbymeans of
Johnsbaptism.14Infavorofthisargumentis,ofcourse,thelinktotheheavenlyvoice
ofPs2:7,againstitthefactthatthePsalmsadoptionformula,todayIhavebegotten
you,hasbeenomittedinfromMk1:11.Butperhapsthisquestion,comingfromthe
latervantagepointofChristologicalcontroversies,isananachronismanddoesnot
reallyoccurtoMark.15 Heismuchmoreconcernedtogiveatextualsignwiththis
divinespeech:thestoryofJesus,Godsbelovedson,findsitsstaringpointinthe
baptismofJohn.ThatthisstorywillnotbewithouttragedyisseeninthelinktoIsa
42:1: the beloved son is addressed in the manner of Gods suffering servant of
DeuteroIsaiah;withthisitisalreadyveryfaintlyimpliedthatsonshipandsuffering,
for Mark, will come together.16 Also, the following scene in Mk 1:1213 can be
interpretedwiththehelpofthealreadymentionedIsa61:1:thebaptizedisendowed
11

FortherelevanceofElijahinthegospelofMarkcf.thestudybyS.Pellegrini,ElijaWegbereiter
des Gottessohnes: Eine textsemiotische Untersuchung im Markusevangelium (HBS 26; Freiburg:
Herder,2000).Pelligriniwrites:ItwouldbetoomuchtospeakofanElijahsecret,butitis
certainlytruethattherecognitionofElijah(intheformofJohntheBaptist)presupposesandactivates
attitudes,thatarealsonecessaryfortherecognitionofthesonofGod(intheformofJesus).Forthis
purposethefigureofJohn,takenasElijah,wasrightlyplacedinthebeginningofthegoodnewsof
JesusChrist(p.383,translatedfromtheGerman).Also,withMk1:14andtheimpliedfateofJohnthe
BaptistthequestionposesitselfinhowfaralsoJesuswillexperiencesomethingsimilar.Cf.alsothe
sensiblethoughtsofR.Feneberg,DerJudeJesusunddieHeiden:BiographieundTheologieJesuim
Markusevangelium(HBS24;Freiburg:Herder,2000),73.
12
QuiteofteninthiscontextGen22:2ismentioned(e.g.byMarcus, Mark18,163),towhichthe
addressbelovedsonmightpoint;however,asfarasIcanseethisreferencedoesnotreappear.
13
ThereseemstobeatextforminthebackgroundthatisclosertotheHebrewtextthanthenewer
LXXversion.Similare.g.alsoA.Y.Collins,Mark(Hermeneia;Minneapolis:Fortress,2007),150.A
ratherextensiveanalysisoftheGreekversion(alsoofPs2:7andGen22:2,12,16)isofferedbyC.
Rose, Theologie als Erzhlung im Markusevangelium: Eine narratologischrezeptionssthetische
UntersuchungzuMk1,115(WUNTII.236;Tbingen:MohrSiebeck,2007),142146.
14
Cf.e.g.Schenke,Markusevangelium,54.
15
VerysimilarisE.Schweizer, DasEvangeliumnachMarkus (NTD1;Goettingen:Vandenhoek&
Ruprecht,1998),17,oralsoR.T.France, TheGospelofMark (NIGTC,GrandRapids:Eerdmans,
2002),82f.
16
ThusthequestionifJesus[is]hereproclaimedasthe(Davidic)Messiahorastheservantof
God(Lhrmann,Markusevangelium,37;translatedfromtheGerman)isinterestingintermsofthe
understandingofthehistoryoftradition,butisnotappropriateinthelightofthetextwhichcontains
bothaspects.

withthespirit,andisassuchtheanointedofGod.Thisiscorroboratedinhis(not
explicitlymentioned,butstillassumed)refusalofgivingintothedevilstemptations.
Thediscussionoverfurtherdimensionsofthisshortpassage,e.g.thequestionifthere
isarelationtotheidealbeginninginparadiseornot,doesnotconcernushere. 17
However,itseemsimportanttomethatthetextbrieflydescribestherelationofthe
anointed to God: he is driven by the spirit of God, which even the devil cannot
change,andheisinconstantcontactwithGod,whospoketohimintheheavenly
voicewhenhewasbaptized,eventhroughtheangelswhoservehim.18
This special relation to God and the wilderness environment serves as a further
elevationoftheanointedfromhissurroundingsbeforehe,attheendoftheBaptists
activity,beginshisownpublicministry(Mk1:1415).19
Withthisthecruciallinesofthetobeexpectedscenarioarealreadydrawn:thetext
alwayswillcirclearoundthequestionhowJesusofNazareth,astheanointedandSon
ofGod,istobeunderstood:asmuchasatleastMk1:13bmightsuggestanidyllic
beginning,withtheallusiontothesufferingservantinMk1:11,andthebriefly
mentionedtemptationsceneofMk1:13a,thepresenceofadarkerside,thatwillco
determinethefateoftheanointed,isalreadyindicated.FromMk1:15onwardsthe
proclamationofgoodnewsandthenearnessoftheruleofGodbecomedeterminative.
AlreadywithMk1:115theoutlinesofthegreattheologicalachievementofMark
becomevisible:MarktightlylinkshisunderstandingofJesusastheChristandthe
SonofGodwiththeseeminglyincomprehensiblehistoricalfactofthesufferingand
deathofJesusonthecross.InthishewillsucceedinapprehendingthecrossofChrist
notmerelyasasideissue,moreorlessasanaccidentalendtothelifeofJesus,but
already from the beginning he pretraces or draws it into the ministry of Jesus,
withoutneglectingthegloriousdimensionoftheSonofGod.20
2.NotastheScribes(Mk1:22)
AlreadyinthefirstappearingoftheMarkanJesusinthesynagogueofCapernaum
(Mk1:2128)thetopicofJesusauthorityplaysarole;21fromthereonthequestionof
theoriginofhisauthoritywillresurfaceagainandagain.Mk1:2128reclaimsthe
theme of the rule of God by means of the teaching motif (Mk 1:21, 22, 27).
Curiously,however,notthecontentofJesusteaching,butthemannerofhisteaching
17

An extensive overview and discussion of the various positions is given by C. Schramm,

ParadiesischeReminiszenz(en)inMk1,13?DerStreitumdieAdamChristusTypologieaufdem
hermeneutischenPrfstand,inTheologiesofCreationinEarlyJudaismandAncientChristianity.In
HonourofHansKlein(eds.T.NicklasundK.Zamfir;DCLStudies6;NewYork:deGruyter,2010),
267298.
18
AngelswhoserveJesusthendesignatedastheSonofManwillonlybementionedagaininMk
13:27.TheendtimeconditionsmentionedinMk13alreadyovershadow,assuch,thebeginningofthe
gospel.
19
Rose, Theologie,describesMk1:1415asthedoorofthegospel(154),andalittlefurtheron
(259f.)thecoresentenceofthegospel(translationsfromtheGerman).
20
ThusIwouldsay,thataChristology,andalsoatheology,thatthinksfromthepointofthecrossisof
utmostimportanceforthegospelofMark.However,whentheologyofthecrossmeanstheattempt
todefineGodonlyfromthepointofthecross,asdonebyE.Cuvilliers,DieKreuzestheologieals
LeseschlsselzumMarkusevangelium,inKreuzestheologieimNeuenTestament(ed.A.Dettwilerand
J.Zumstein;WUNT151;Tbingen:MohrSiebeck,2002),107150,here109,thenIwouldbyvirtue
ofthemultidimensionalityoftheMarkanChristologyandtheologyhesitatetoagree.
21
As such the following section was entitled A Man with Authority by B. Van Iersel,
Markuskommentar(Duesseldorf:Patmos,1993),91(translatedfromtheGerman).

isdisclosed.Unlikethescribesheteacheswithauthority(evxousi,a;Mk1:22,27).22
Whatthismeansinparticularisprogrammaticallymadeobviousintheexorcismin
thesynagogueofCapernaum:hewhowithstoodSatanstemptationnowastheHoly
OneofGod23(Mk1:24)willcondemntheuncleanspirits24anddemons;thatoneis
speakingforallofthemisseenbytheuseoftheplural:Didyoucometodestroy
us?(Mk1:24).Withthisapositivenarrativethreadbegins:Jesusappearanceleads,
likeanepiphany,toamazement(evqambh,qhsan;Mk1:17),thenewsabouthim
travels(Mk1:28),andthenumberofthemiraclesandexorcismsheworksincrease
(Mk1:2934).This,ofcourse,continuesinasequenceofscenesuntilrightafter
3:6, where the Pharisees and Herodians decision to kill him is mentioned it
reachesafirstclimaxinMk3:712(cf.alsoMk3:3135).However,itisdoubtfulif
thismultitude,despitetheuseoftheverbavkolouqe,w,isunderstoodinthegospel
as something purely positive.25 After all, for the most part the multitude remains
faceless.Akeyfortheevaluationofthemultitudes roleiscertainly tobefound
alreadyinchapter4.AsmuchastheMarkanparablespeechcanbeseenfirstasan
illustrationoftheproclamationofthekingdomofGod,andasmuchasonecould
thinkthatthementioningofthemultitudeheredescribesthebright,successfulsideof
theMarkanChrist,theshortinterludeofMk4:1012clearlydisruptsthispicture:not
even the closest circle around Jesus understands the meaning of the parable (Mk
4:10). The reason that the teaching of Jesus is given in parables (and not in
straightforwardspeech)isthatthegreatmultitudeisstilloutside,andaccordingto
Isa6:9fismeanttobehardened. 26ThesecretoftheKingdomofGodisgivenonlyto
asmallcircle (cf.alsoMk4:33f).Couldonethusperhaps alos place next tothe
familiar(andsomewhatdisputed)motifoftheMarkanMessianicSecretthemotif
ofaKingdomofGodSecret?27 Iwouldthinksoafterall,itismoreexplicit(Mk
22

Fenebergrightlyassertsthatthedescriptionnotlikethescribes(Mk1:22)doesnotnecessarily
representanegativeassessmentofthescribesteachingyet,seeidem,JudeJesus,80f.Differenthere
P.Dschulnigg, DasMarkusevangelium (ThKNT;Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,2007),80,whoplacesMk
1:22intotheemergingnegativeimageofthescribesinthegospelofMark.
23
FormoreonthetitlesbackgroundanditshistoryoftraditionseeMarcus,Mark18,188f.
24
ThejuxtapositionofHolySpirit(Mk1:8)anduncleanspirit(Mk1:23),whichthetextcreates,
connectsthesceneof1:2128tothebeginningofchapter1.ForthisseealsoC.Wahlen,Jesusandthe
ImpurityofSpiritsintheSynopticGospels(WUNTII.185;Tbingen:MohrSiebeck,2004),91.
25
Differentthane.g.Schenke,Markusevangelium,113:Nothingspeaksagainstunderstanding27b8
asasuccessreport,evenfromtheviewpointoftheauthor.HeprobablyevaluatedthegrowthofJesus
popularityasquitepositive(translatedfromtheGerman).SimilarDschulnigg, Markusevangelium,
113,whospeaksofJesusgreatsuccess.Cf.howeverGnilka,MarkusI,134f.:Iftherumorabout
hisministry,whichonlycanrefertohishealings,isthecauseoftheirincrease,theirattitudestands
criticized(translatedfromtheGerman).
26
Fenebergrightlyemphasizesthatthefactthatoneisamemberoftheingroupdoesnotguarantee,
thattheythemselvesrightlyhearandsee,thus,thattheycouldnotbehardened, JudeJesus,127
(translatedfromtheGerman).Howmuchthisisthecasewillagainandagainbeseeninthecaseofthe
disciples(lackof)understanding.
27
Thisthenwouldbecloselyrelatedtothesocalledparabletheory,thatholdsthattheparablesexist
toturntheproclamationofthegospelintoariddle.ForanintroductionseeGnilka,MarkusI,17072.
Different Klumbies, Mythos, 199, who writes: The term Kingdom of God does not have a
mysteriousqualityinMark.TheMarkanJesus,withhistalkofthekingdomofGod,introduceshis
audience,respectivelyhisreaders,toanabsolutenormalityforalltosee.Histalkofthekingdomof
Godaimsattherecoveryofthedimensionoverlookedbytheseekers(v.12),particularlytoseethe
secretofthebasilei,a tou/ qeou/inthatwhichisnearandtakenforgranted,andtofinditinthe
normalityofthecourseoflife(translatedfromtheGerman).IwouldthinkthatKlumbiescomesclose
heretoanappropriateinterpretationofanimportantdimensionofthemessageofthehistoricalJesus,

4:11)thanaMessiahorSonofGodSecret,inparticularbecausethequestionofthe
establishmentofthenearruleofGod(Mk1:15)remainsunansweredupto(almost)
theendofthetext.
ThegospelofMark,thereby,certainlyreactstothefactofthewidespreadrejectionof
themessageofJesusinitsowncontextandbuildsuptheimageoftheingroupof
the churchas kind ofmoreelite circle. Nevertheless, thetext anticipates that the
proclamation by means of parables will not stop the intermediate success of the
message.ThisisnotonlyillustratedbythegrowthparablesinMk4:2629and30
32,butinparticularbyMk4:22:Fornothingishidden,excepttoberevealed;nor
hasanythingbeensecret,butthatitshouldcometolight.
Throughthis,christologicallythepossibilityemergesthroughthisthat,ontheone
hand Christ, at least in his earthly ministry despite his emerging exousia,can be
depictedassomeoneforthemostpartmisunderstood,andontheotherhand,itcanbe
explainedwhytheaddressedchurchcanverywellbecomprisedofChristsfollowers.
WiththehelpofMk4:22onecanevenbuildabridgebetweenthedecidedlyopenand
unsatisfactoryendofMk16:8,andthesituationofthechurch:EvenifJesusclosest
followersdidnotunderstandhismessage,andevenifthewomenatthetombdidnot
passonthemessageofJesusresurrection,thismessageisneverthelessunstoppable.
3.ThemisunderstoodandrejectedChrist
AlthoughthepowerfuldeedsandwordsoftheMarkanJesus,atleastinthefirsthalf
of the gospel, lead to the fact that Jesus is being followed by aneverincreasing
multitude, even pursued, already in the first chapters the outlines of a very clear
secondthreadbecomeevident:accordingtoMk1:3539veryearlyonJesusretreats
intosolitudetopray;therelationtothewildernesssceneof1:1213seemsclear.The
intimacyofhisrelationtoGod,however,becomesdisturbedbecauseSimon(Peter)
andhiscompanionsdonotsimplyfollowafterJesus,butalmostaggressivelypursue
him(katadiw,kw;Mk1:36)28thestatement:Everybodyislookingforyou(Mk
1:37)canonlybeunderstoodasanaccusation.
Thissecondthreadinthefollowingpassagesbecomesmorepronounced:although
Jesusmorefrequentlyseeksoutsolitaryplaces(Mk1:45),themultitudearoundhim
persistently increases. Insofar as these could be indicators of the success of his
proclamation,thecontrasttothesituationinthebeginninginthewilderness(Mk
1:12)becomesevident:thereisnownomoretalkofangelswhoministertohim.In
turn,thesubsequentdeedsofJesusleadmoreandmoretoconflict,whereasoriginally
they only leadtoapprovaloramazement.Thatthisconflictwouldleadtodeathis
alreadyseeninMk2:112:wheretheauthorityoftheSonofMan(Mk2:10),the
powertoforgivesin,ismeanttobeseen,nowstandstheaccusationofblasphemy
(Mk2:7),thesameaccusationwhichintheendwillbetheindictmentforthedeath
sentenceinthetrialbeforethehighcouncil(Mk14:64). 29Basedonthelogicofthe
butIalsothinkthattheGospelofMarkclearlyplotsaratherdifferentcourseregardingthequestion
whysomanypeopledonotaccept Jesusmessage(andalsowhenandhowthekingdomofGod
begins).
28
Cf.alsoMarcus,Mark18,202:Thisisaratherstrangeverbtouse,sinceitisacompoundedform
ofdik(topursueorpersecute)andisalmostalwaysusedinahostilesense,forhuntingdownones
enemiesItdoes,ironically,fitinwiththemilitaryatmosphereof1:1620;2128:Jesushascalled
thedisciplestobecomefishersofhumanbeings,butinsteadtheyimmediatelyhunt him down.
Otherauthorse.g.France,Mark,112hesitatetounderstandtheverbinitscommonmeaning.
29
SoalsoFrance,Mark,126,Rose,Theologie,186,andSchenke,Markusevangelium,88.

matter,i.e.thatonlyGodcanforgivesin,thescribesaccusationmakessense.Based
onthelogicofthetext,whichhasintroducedJesusastheoneGodhasanointedwith
theSpiritandtheSonofGod,evenastheonetowhomGodhasspokendirectly,itis
tobeunderstoodasasignofblindnessofthosewhojudgeinthisway.
ThattheJesusstoryinevitablywillleadtohisdeathisalsoseeninvariousways
throughthefollowingscenes:stillquiteharmlessistheaccusationthatheiseating
withthetaxcollectorsandsinners(Mk2:16),andalsothequestionwhyJesus
disciples are not fasting (Mk 2:18) could still be read as a simple request for
information.Butwhentheanswerspeaksofdays,afterwhichthebridegroomwillbe
takenaway,orliterallylifted away(avparqh/| avp v auvtw/n,Mk2:20),
thenthiscanalreadybeunderstoodasahiddenindicatorofthecomingcross. 30Then,
bothSabbathconflicts,whicharecloselyrelatedonaccountoftheircommonthemes,
leadinMk3:6tothedecisionofthePhariseesandHerodianstokillJesus. 31Drastic
displaysoftherejectionofJesusarealsoportrayedinMk3:20f.,wherehisfamily
believeshehadlosthissense,andMk3:2230,whereinterestinglybyscribes
fromJerusalem,theplaceofJesusdeathJesusauthorityisrelatedtoBeelzebul. 32
ThisthreadofJesusrejection,introducedsoearlyinthegospel,isofcoursenot
completedwiththisitgoesthroughthewholeofthegospel(cf.e.gMk5:17,6:6,
8:11)andbecomesverystronginthescenesinJerusalemthatprecedethepassion
(Mk11:2733,12:1327,3540).Butalreadynowthefollowinginterimconclusion
canbemade:
When the sofar recognized indicators of Jesus fate that appear in the separate
conflictsaretakentogether,alreadyinthefirstchaptersamosaicemerges,inwhich
thecrucifixionofJesusinJerusalemis,atleast,discernibleinoutline.
Also,twoothertypicalMarkanmotifs canberelatedtothis thread,thesocalled
MessianicSecretandtheunderstandingofthedisciples:
Thelesselusiveofthesetwomotifscertainlyistheunderstandingofthedisciples: 33
EveniftheclosestcirclearoundJesus,namelySimonandAndrew,JohnandJames,
already follow him from the beginning of his public ministry (Mk1:1620), one
consistentlyencounterssignsoftheir(andoftheotherdisciples)failure:althoughthe
30

Iwouldinterprettheliftinghereasaliftingontothecross,ratherthanasareferencetoarapture
theology.
31
Klumbies, Mythos, 185, writes on the sequence of scenes in Mk 2:13:6: The maxims Jesus
representsmeettheresistanceofreality,whichisboundtoothernorms,andconsequentlyleadto
conflicts.ThereisnobridgebetweenthecriteriaoftheoldorderofJesuscriticsandJesuspractice.
Thenewisnotderivedfromtheold.Thisheraldsanewconfrontationalapproachtohistory.A
little further on Klumbies describes the significance of Mk 3:6: 3:6 shows: Jesus was not able
anymoretoovercometheresistance,whichwasbuildingupsince2:6,7,againstthenormshestood
for.Thedeadlyoutcomeofhislifebeginstobecomeapparentastheconsequenceofhisnormsetting
behavior(p.186,alltranslationsfromtheGerman).
32
TheconnectiontoJerusalemandtheaccusationthatseesJesusinoppositiontoGodrelate,ofcourse,
essentiallythesamepatternthatisalsoencounteredinJesussentencingbeforethehighcouncil.
33
Itisclearthatthismotifalsofulfilsadidacticfunctionofguidingthereader.Nevertheless,Iwould
notwantsaythatthereisnodistancebeingcreatedbetweenJesusandhisdisciples,rather,thedisciples
becomeinthepostEasterperiod,duetotheirfrequentlynecessaryinstruction,especiallyqualified
witnessesoftheJesusevent(soe.g.Broer/Weidemann,Einleitung,102):Afterall,thedisciplesplay
inthepostEasterperiodatbestaroleinaprospectivesortofway,andnowheredowefindthatJesus
instructionsleadtoanysortofprogressintheirattitude.

readerhastolookverycarefullyinthefirstthreechapterstofindthatJesusdisciples
donotplayanentirelypositiveroleinthewholeofthenarrative,fromchapter4
onwardstheirblatantlackofunderstandingbecomesmoreandmoreobvious.Inthe
stormsceneonthelake(Mk4:3541)theyarenotonlyaccusedoflackinginfaith
(Mk4:40),alsotheirfinalquestionti,j a;ra ou-to,j evstin,pairedwiththeirgreat
fear(evfobh,qhsan fo,bon me,gan)showsthat,althoughanepiphanyoccurred
inthesilencingofthestorm,theywereonlymovedtoquestiontheidentityofJesus,
though,withoutfindinganadequateanswer.Inotherscenesthedisciplesattitude
towardsJesuscouldalmostbedescribedasatleastinsensitive,ifnotrude:Whenthe
womanwiththebloodissuebrokethroughthewallofpeoplesurroundingJesusand
touched him, they treat Jesus question about who touched him essentially as
somethingfoolish(Mk5:31).34 Inthecontextofthemultiplicationmiracleandhis
walkingonwater(Mk6:3052)thedisciplesdismayoverJesusepiphanyonthe
lakeispreciselyexplainedasthemnothavinggainedanyinsightandthattheir
heartwashardened(Mk6:52).Also,intheconflictoverpurificationandimpurity
(Mk1:123),thediscipleshavetoaskaboutthemeaningofJesusstatements:the
textdoesnotmakeclearwhethertheyunderstandJesussubsequentexplanation(Mk
7:1823).However,thedoublingofthemultiplicationmiracles(Mk6:3044:The
feedingofthe5000,Mk8:110:Thefeedingofthe4000)whenconsideredtogether,
rendersthedisciplesquestioninthesecondinstance(Mk8:4)notonlyasasignof
themagnitudeofthemiracleandgravityofthesituationanymore,butalsoasasign
oftheirhardeningandlackofinsight.
Allthisbecomes evenmorepointedjustafew verses afterthesecondfeeding
miraclewhenthedisciplesworryismentioned,becausetheyhadnobread(Mk
8:16). In this light, the question even arises how appropriately the disciples have
fulfilled their suggested roles of authoritatively supporting Jesus in his teaching,
whichwasgiventothemwhenhefirstcalledthem(Mk3:1415).IntheMarkan
commissioningscene(Mk6:6b13)theyleavewithoutbreadandmoney(Mk6:8)
andcallpeoplejustlikeJohntheBaptist(Mk1:4)torepentance.Theydoinfact
driveoutmanydemonsandhealmanysick,butthis,incomparisontoJesus,occurs
throughanointing(Mk6:13)35yetanyproclamationofgoodnewsofthekingdomof
Godisnotmentionedatall.
This thought by itself only relates the image of a misunderstood, not adequately
acceptedChrist,evenintheclosestcircle.AcrucialsignfortheChristologyofthe
text, with regard to the disciples (lack of) understanding, connects this to an
importantaspectofwhatisusuallydescribedastheMessianicSecret.Itiswell
knownthatalreadysinceWilliamWredetheMarkanmotifoftheMessianicSecret
hasbeendebatedquitehotly.36 Inmyopinion,however,thereisnodoubtthatthe
observation,thattheMarkanJesusforbidsthediscussionofhismiraclesinvarious
34

Whereasvariousinterpretersseektoexcusethedisciplesreaction,Marcus,Mark18,359,writes,in
myopinionrightly,oftheapparentimpertinenceofthedisciples.
35
ThisdifferenceisalsoindicatedbyMarcus, Mark18,384,who,however,evaluatestheoverall
missionofthedisciplesassuccessful(p.391).
36
Cf.W.Wrede,DasMessiasgeheimnisindenEvangelien:ZugleicheinBeitragzumVerstndnisdes
Markusevangeliums(3rd.ed.;Goettingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1963).Cf.alsoH.Risnen,The
MessianicSecretinMark(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1990),andthesummaryofthepresentresearchby
G.Guttenberger,DieGottesvorstellungimMarkusevangelium(BZNW123,Berlin:deGruyter,2004),
31420.

situations,ortokeeponescommitmenttohimasecret,isinfactasignificantone.
Undercloserscrutiny,however,itbecomesquiteevidentthatthereareinfactvarious
motifshiddenunderthelabelofthatdesignation,anditbegsthequestionifonecan
speakof the MarkanMessianicSecretatall. 37 IatleastconsiderJesusvarious
prohibitionstoopenlyappraisehimastheHolyOneofGod(Mk1:24f),asSonof
God(Mk3:11)orasMessiah(Mk8:30)tobasicallybelongtoonetype(cf.alsomore
generallyMk1:34):thedecisivekeyfortheunderstandingisfound,inmyopinion,in
Mk8:2733,thesceneinCaesareaPhilippi,whichatthesametimeisaturningpoint
oftheentiregospel.38AlreadyMk6:1416mentionsspeculationsoverthequestionof
whoJesusisforthefirsttime,whichissoimportantforthegospel. 39Inthelightof
Mk1:1and1:11itisclear,however,thatthevariousstatementsthatJesusisthe
resurrectedJohntheBaptist,Elijahoraprophet(Mk6:14f)donotgofarenoughto
cometoanadequateunderstandingofJesus.ThequestioncomesupagaininMk8:27
thistimefromJesushimself.Tothisfirstquestion,WhodothepeoplesayIam?
(Mk8:27),thedisciplesgiveexactlythesameanswer(Mk8:28)asalreadydiscussed
in Mk 6:14f, thus reflecting the opinion of those that already in Mk 4:11b are
describedasthoseoutside.Decisivenowisthesecondquestion:Andwhodoyou
sayIam?Withthistheinsidegroupismeant,ofwhomitissaidinMk4:11athat
theyareentrustedwiththemysteriesofthekingdomofGod.Itwouldappearthat
thebreakthroughintheunderstandingofthedisciplesisfinallyachievedwhenSimon
Peter,apparentlyforthewholegroup,confessesYouaretheMessiah!(Mk8:29).
InthelightofMk1:1thisconfessionwouldseemadequateandyetinitonceagain
therelevanceoftheevangelistsmostdecisivequestionbecomesapparent:Yes,Jesus
isChristbutwhatdoesthatactuallymean?40
RatherthanpraisingSimonandthedisciplesforthisconfession,Jesusforbidsthemto
speakaboutit(Mk8:30)andbeginstoinstructthem.Indoingsohedoesnotusethe
titleoftheMessiah,butreferstohimselfastheSonofMan.Thisonehastosuffer
manythingsandberejectedbytheeldersandthechiefpriestsandthescribes,andbe
killed,andafterthreedaysriseagain(Mk8:31).OnlynowthequalityofPeters
confessionbecomesevidentthesamewhojustconfessedJesusastheMessiah,now
37

A. Winn, The Purpose of Marks Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial
Propaganda (WUNTII.245,Tbingen:MohrSiebeck,2008),136139,differentiatesbetween two
differentmotifs,onerelatedtomiracles,whichisoftendisclosed,andonerelatedtoJesusidentity,
whichinfactiskept.
38
Feneberg, Jude Jesus, sees a decisive cut between 8:30 and 8:31, which prevents him from
interpretingthedynamicofthe,inmyopinion,clearlyconnectedscenesinallitssharpness.
39
ForthestructurallinkbetweenMk8:2733andMk6:1444cf.alsoKlumbies, Mythos,23638.
FurtherlinksevenMk1:27;4:41and6:2arediscernedbyJ.Marcus,Mark816(AB27A;New
Haven/London:Doubleday,2009),611.
40
InthesamelineofmyinterpretationsisalsoLhrmann,Markusevangelium,146,whenhewrites:
ForMarktheconfessionofPeter,thatJesusisthe cristo,j,isnotwrong,however,inthelightof
current messianic expectations it was disputed in what sense he could be designated as such
(translatedfromtheGerman).ImportantalsoisthethoughtofJ.R.DonahueandD.J.Harrington,The
Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina 2, Collegeville, MN: The Order of St. Benedict, 2002), 265, who
emphasizehowmuchMarkreinterpretsthetitleofChristinthelightofthecross.Relativelycloseto
my interpretation is also Cuvillier, Kreuzestheologie, 116: The reader understands, that for Peter
ChrististheeschatologicalDavidicfigure,theroyalmessiah,whocomestoliberatehispeopleandto
establishanearthlykingdomThenarrativesuggeststhatthereisaradicaldifferencebetweenthe
disciplesunderstanding ofJesusmessiahshipandwhat Jesushimselfholds(translated from the
German).P.Lamarche,vangiledeMarc(tB.NS33;Paris:Gabalda,1996),203,ontheotherhand
doesnotentirelyhitthemarkwhenhespeaksofhalfconfessionofPeter.

takeshimasideandsharplyrebukeshim(evpitima,w;Mk8:32).Itbecomesclear
thatPeterusedthecorrecttitle forJesus,buthehasnotadequately filleditwith
meaning.41 Howdramaticthisfalseunderstandingreallyisseen,becomesvisiblein
Jesusreaction,whonowinturnrebukes(alsoevpitima,w,Mk8:33)Peter:tonot
integratethesuffering,deathandresurrectionoftheSonofManintotheimageof
Christ Jesus is Satans work. Also, with this reference to Satan a clear link is
establishedbetweenMk8:33andJesusrefusaltoacceptthedemonsuseoftitlesin
addressinghim.FromMarkspointofviewtheuseoftherighttitlewithawrong
understandingthatdoesnotincludesuffering,crossandresurrectionhastoberejected
byallmeans.
4.InstructionandRevelation
WiththisismindonecanalsounderstandwhyJesusinthegospelofMarknevercalls
himselfMessiah/ChristorSonofGod,butinsteadusesanumberofothertitlesand
attributes that are less associated with specific expectations. Of course, the
designationSonofManisespeciallyprominent,whichisusedinrelationtoJesus
roleintheendtimes(Mk8:38,13:26,14:62),hispresentauthority(Mk2:20,cf.also
2:28),orhissuffering(Mk8:31,9:31,10:33,14:21). 42However,therearealsoother
designations that usually are not counted as proper titles, and are therefore not
consideredinChristologies,thatfocusedsolelyontitles.Yetitisthesedesignations
that,duetotheirfreshness,areparticularlyhelpfultoelucidatethemeaningofthe
classictitles.Jesustalksofhimselfasaphysician(Mk2:17),asbridegroom
(Mk2:20),astheLordoftheSabbath(Mk2:28),orasshepherd(Mk14:27).He
describeshimselfastheone,whohasauthoritytoforgivesins(Mk2:10),whocalls
sinners(Mk2:17),orhecompareshisactions,atleastindirectly,tothoseofDavid
(Mk2:25).Allthesekindofdescriptionsofthedeedsandofthesignificanceofthe
MarkanJesusarealsogivenoutwardly.
Theinstructionsfortheinnerandinnermostcirclegomuchfurtheranddeeper:the
MarkanJesus,onhiswaytoJerusalem,speaksthreetimes(Mk8:3133,9:3032,
10:3234)explicitlyaboutthefatehewouldencounterinJerusalem.Yet,threetimes
thereactionsofthedisciples,ortheirrepresentatives,revealtheircompletelackof
understanding.43Thevariouselementsencounteredintheseoccurrencesvaryslightly:
Mk8:3133speaksofsuffering,rejection,deathandresurrectionoftheSonofMan,
41

Thedifferentinterpretationsofthescenearehardtokeeptrackofitseemstomethatthedecisive
problemofmanyinterpretationsisthattheyattempttolookatPetersconfessionastheclimaxofthe
GospelofMarktoreaditasasignthatPetersuccessfullyarrivedattheproperunderstanding.Cf.
e.g.therespectiveconsiderationofFeneberg, JudeJesus,18695,who,basedonhispurelypositive
assessmentofPetersconfession,likewisealsorejectstheMessianicSecret.Verysimilarisalso
Schenke,Markusevangelium,207,whowanttoforgoareligionsgeschichtlichedifferentiationofthe
term here, but in doing so must overlook that the confession, although literally accurate, in the
immediatecontext,duetoPetersfalseunderstandingofthecontentofthisconfession,stillleadstohis
identificationwithSatan(Mk8:33).Also,J.Gnilka,DasEvangeliumnachMarkus(Mk8,2716,20)
(EKKII/2;5thed.;Zurich/NeukirchenVluyn:Neukirchener,1999),15,issurelyrightinassertingthat
thecommandtosilencedoesnotnecessarilymeanadevaluationoftheconfession;butthisisthecase
in8:3133,whereitisevidentthatPeterdidnotunderstandhisconfessioninthesenseitwasmeantto
beunderstoodinMark.
42
Inthemeantime,theliteratureonthetitleofSonofManhasbecomehardlymanageable.Cf.more
recentlye.g.therespectivearticlesinD.Snger,GottessohnundMenschensohn:ExegetischeStudien
zuzweiParadigmenbiblischerIntertextualitt(BThSt67;NeukirchenVluyn:Neukirchener,2004).In
contrasttheclassicworkbyM.D.Hooker,TheSonofManinMark(London:SPCK,1967).

whichissubsequentlyrejectedbyPeter;Mk9:3032speaksoftheSonofManbeing
handed over, his death, and resurrection, yet the disciples do not understand the
meaningofwhatissaid,andsubsequentlyendupinanutterlysenselessfightover
grouphierarchy(Mk9:33f);44Mk10:3234speaksoftheSonofManbeinghanded
overtothechiefpriestsandscribes,hisdeathsentence,andhisbeinghandedoverto
thegentiles,addingthespecificdetailsofJesusmockingandtorturebeforehisdeath
andresurrection.Inspiteofthiscompactpassionnarrative,JamesandJohnapproach
Jesusimmediatelyafterwardstosecurespecialplacesofhonorforthemselvesinhis
kingdom(whichtheyobviouslyunderstoodasanentirelyearthlyaffair;Mk10:35,
37).Again,Jesusanswersthembypointingtohispassion,tothecuphehastodrink
(Mk10:38f;cf.Mk14:36).
Only in one place does the announcement of the fate on the cross go to those
outsidealthoughthenonlyinparables(Mk12:1a,cf.Mk4:1012):Theparable
of the evil vineyard tenants (Mk 12:111)45 clearly offers itself to be read as an
allegoryofthehistoryofGodwithhispeople:AlreadythesimilarityofMk12:1bto
Isa5:12LXXsuggeststhatGodistobeseenasthevineyardownerandIsraelasthe
vineyard;themistreatedandkilledmessengers(Mk12:25)aremostlikelytobeseen
as the prophets. Christologically decisive, however, is 12:611: Jesus himself is
clearlytobeunderstoodasthebelovedsonandheir. 46Consequently,theimpliedfate
ofthesontheytookhim,andkilledhim,andthrewhimoutofthevineyardisa
parablelikeannouncementofthesufferinganddeathofJesus(Mk12:8,11).Butthe
elementoftheannouncementofhisresurrectionalsofindsamysteriousequivalentin
thequotationofPs118:2223LXXMk12:1011:47 Thestonewhichthebuilders
rejected,thisbecamethechiefcornerstone.ThiscameaboutfromtheLord,andthis
miraclehappenedbeforeoureyes!Inparticular,therejectionofthesonhasdramatic
consequences for the tenants also the owner will come and destroy the vine
growers (Mk 12:9). Ido notthink it appropriate to simply equate the vineyard
tenants with Israel rather the context would suggest they are the chief priests,
scribesandeldersastheleadingrepresentativesofIsrael,whoagainaskaboutJesus
authority (Mk 11:28), yet do not receive an answer. Nevertheless the antiJewish
potentialofthetextshouldnotbeunderestimated:TheChristoftheGospelofMark
isunderstoodhereastheonewhowasrejectedbytheleadersofhisownpeople,and
yetastheonevindicatedbyGod.
However,theserevelationsarenotmerelyrestrictedtotheaspectofsufferingthe
gloryofthecomingoneisalsoshowntothehighcouncilinMk14:62astothosewho
areoutside:AndyoushallseetheSonofMansittingattherighthandofpowerand
43

Averyextensiveanalysisofthisscene(althoughwithastrongfocusonredactionhistory)isoffered
byA.Weihs, DieDeutungdesTodesJesuimMarkusevangelium:EineexegetischeStudiezuden
LeidensundAuferstehungsansagen(FzB99;Wrzburg:Echter,2003),233452.
44
Which,asSchenke,Markusevanglium,234f,recognizes,showslinkstoMk8:31and9:12.
45
ForfurtherreadingontheinterpretationofthistextanditssignificancefortheChristologyofMark
cf.A.Weihs,JesusunddasSchicksalderPropheten:DasWinzergleichnis(Mk12,112)imHorizont
desMarkusevangeliums(BThSt61,NeukirchenVluyn:Neukirchener,2003).
46
Cf.alsotheobservationsofFeneberg, JudeJesus,270:Thebiblicallyinformedlistenerhearsin
theseformulations,moreover,thatJesusasthebelovedsoniscomparedtoIsaac(Gen22:2)andto
Joseph(Gen37:20),thesonofJacob,theheir,whomhisownbrotherswanttokill.Aperceptivereader
ofthegospelwillalsorememberthatJesushasalreadybeencalledbelovedsontwiceinthenarrative,
bythevoicefromheavenduringhisbaptism(Mk1:11),andbythevoicefromthecloud(Mk9:7)
(translatedfromtheGerman).
47
FortheparticularformofthequotationseeYarbroCollins,Mark,548.

comingwiththecloudsofheavenalinewhichisacombinationofPs110:1 48and
Dan7:13,whichissubsequentlyunderstoodasblasphemy(Mk14:64),andleadsto
Jesusdeathsentence.
Attheveryleasttheinnercircleofthediscipleshasalreadyexperiencedsomething
similartwice:Thespeechonlastthings,beginninginMk13:3,isgiventoPeter,
James,JohnandAndrew,whichispreciselythatcircleofdisciplesJesuscalledfirst
(Mk1:1620).Inthespeechscenterstandsinaverysimilarfashionthoughwithout
areferencetoPs110theeschatologicalreturnofthecomingonerelatedtoDan
7:13:AndthentheywillseetheSonofMancomingincloudswithgreatpowerand
glory.AndthenHewillsendforththeangels,andwillgathertogetherHiselectfrom
thefourwinds,fromthefarthestendoftheearth,tothefarthestendofheaven(Mk
13:2627).AlthoughJesusspeaksinbothcasesonlyabouttheSonofMan,thehigh
priesthasunderstoodwhatclaimstandsbehindthisstatement:Theonecomingonthe
cloudsofheavenis,accordingtoMk14:62,theonewhomGodhasgivenaplaceof
power.Thecomingone,whobasedonMk13:26issomeonewithgreatpowerand
glory,isassuchnotonlydescribedasheavenlybeing,butverylikelyalsoastheone
whoamidsttheheavenlyhostiscomingforthefinaljudgment.Thismeans,however,
thatthisexaltedfigureassumesrolesonthedayoftheLord,whichareexpectedto
onlybelongtoGod.
ThisChristologyofglorynotonlyhasafutureaspect,butalreadyshinesintoJesus
owntime.ItisshownbeforehandtotheinnermostcirclethistimewithoutAndrew:
AsmuchasthenarrativeoftheGospelofMarkextensivelypreparesfortheglooming
fate of the cross, nevertheless, it does not keep silent about the bright, heavenly
dimensionoftheruleoftheSonofGod,althoughitcleverlycombinesitwiththe
announcement of suffering and the need to take up ones cross, (Mk 8:3438)
revealingitinthetransfigurationscenetoPeter,JamesandJohn(andtothereader)
exclusively.Thetransfiguration(Mk9:210)notonlytransformsthefigureofJesus
sothatheisunderstoodasaheavenlybeingandrelateshimtoElijahandMoses,
more importantly, Gods voice is heard a second time. 49 The words This is my
belovedson,listentohim!notonlydescribeJesusastheSonofGod,and inter
textually,followingDeut18:15,astheanticipatedprophetlikeMoses,thesewords
alsohaveadouble intratextual reference:Ontheonesidetheyreferbacktothe
baptism,whereGodsvoiceisheardforthefirsttime(Mk1:11)andwhereJesusis
called beloved son for the first time, and on the other hand they instruct the
disciplestoheedJesussubsequentinstructionasdifficultasitmaybeforthem
andtolistentohim.50Ifinditparticularlyimportantthatfromthispointtotheendof
48

For the significance of this psalm for he New Testament cf. M. Tilly, Psalm 110 zwischen
hebrischerBibelundNeuemTestament,andL.Bormann,Psalm110imDialogmitdemNeuen
Testament,bothinHeiligkeitundHerrschaft:IntertextuelleStudienzuHeiligkeitsvorstellungenund
zuPsalm110 (ed.DieterSnger;BThSt55,NeukirchenVluyn:Neukirchener,2003),14670,and
171205,alsoA.H.I.Lee,FromMessiahtoPreexistentSon(WUNTII.192;Tbingen:MohrSiebeck,
2005),202239(specificallytoMk14:62cf.pp.23136).
49
An extensive interpretation of the Markan transfiguration scene is offered b S.S. Lee, Jesus
TransfigurationandtheBelieversTransformation:AStudyofTransfigurationandItsDevelopmentin
EarlyChristianWritings (WUNTII.265; Tbingen:MohrSiebeck,2009),948.However, forthe
theophanicelementsofthescenecf.YarbroCollins,Mark,425f.
50
Beyondthisthey,ofcourse,alsoaddressthereadersofthetext.D.S.DuToit,DerabwesendeHerr:
Strategien im Markusevangelium zur Bewltigung der Abwesenheit des Auferstandenen (WMANT
111;NeukirchenVluyn:Neukirchener,2006),369,writes:Thereactualizationofthetransfiguration
accountattheendofthegospelofMarkhasthefunctionofpointingouttheongoingvalidityof

thegospelthevoiceofGodis not heard anymore.OnlyoncemoreJesuswillbe

calledtheSonofGodexplicitlyandthattimenotbyGod,butbythecenturion
underthecross,oneofthemostimportant minor characters ofthegospel(Mk
15:39).51
5.GlimpsesofHopeontheWaytotheCross
Besidethemultitudeofthosewho,forvariousreasons,followJesus,whobecome
witnessesofhisdeeds,orhearhisparables,yetremainoutside(Mk4:11),andthe
morenarrowgroupofthedisciples,inwhichtheTwelve(Mk3:1319)haveamore
specialposition,theGospelofMarkalsodescribes,atleastinafewplaces,some
figures that appear to break through the wall of doubt and misunderstanding
surroundingtheMarkanJesusandwhofindtheirwaytotheChristmovement.Thisis
alreadyrudimentarilyvisiblewiththehealedleper(Mk1:4045),whoappearsto
almostprovokeJesusbyhismannerofapproachinghim,52butwithhisstatementof
trustIfyouarewilling,youcanmakemeclean(Mk1:41)movesJesustoactually
heal him. The same follows with the paralyzed man and his carriers, who break
througharooftogettoJesus(Mk2:112),withthedemoniacofGerasa,whobegs
Jesustolethimstaywithhim(Mk5:18),withthewomanwiththeissueofblood,
whoishealedonaccountofherfaith,whoJesusnotonlyhealsbutalsograntspeace
(Mk5:34),oralsowiththeSyroPhoenicianwomanwhomanagestoconvinceJesus
tohealherdaughter(Mk7:2230).53
EvenfurtheronthepathofarrivingatanadequateunderstandingofChristareother
figures. Of particular interest is Bartimaeus, the blind man in Jericho, who only
throughloud,repeatedcallsisabletobreakthroughthewallofpeoplesurrounding
Jesus(Mk10:4748):evenifonemightspeculatewhetherhisconfessionthatJesusis
theSonofDavidisalreadyadequate, 54notonlydoesJesusreplyYourfaithhas
madeyouwellrevealthathefoundhiswaytoanappropriaterelationshiptoChrist,
butalsothefactthatnowhebeganfollowinghimontheroad(Mk10:52).55
Though only a minor character, Simon of Cyrene is very probably a historical
memory, due to the unique designation as father of Alexander and Rufus (Mk
JesusauthorityofteachingandrevelationforthetimeofJesusimminentabsence(translatedfrom
theGerman).
51
Thatthereis,infact,astructurallinkbetweenallthreepassageswhereJesusisdesignatedasSonof
Godisalsomadeevidentbytheuseoftheword fwnh,,whichalsoKlumbies, Mythos,274has
shown;fortheadditionallinktothe(albeittextcriticallyuncertainMk1:1)cf.theconsiderationsof
Rose,Theologie,240.However,morecriticalisM.Ebner,KreuzestheologieimMarkusevangelium
inKreuzestheologieimNeuenTestament(eds.A.DettwilerundJ.Zumstein;WUNT151,Tbingen:
MohrSiebeck,2002),15168,here15358,whocertainlyisnotwronginpointingoutthedifference
betweenthefirsttwoproclamationsandthecenturionsstatement,whichheemphasizeswithregardto
itspoliticaldimensions.
52
Iconsiderthereadingovrgistqei,jinMk1:41asoriginal.Forthetextcriticaldiscussioncf.B.D.
Ehrman,ALeperintheHandsofanAngryJesusin StudiesintheTextualCriticismoftheNew
Testament(NTTS33,Leiden/Boston:Brill,2006),12041.
53
For further reading see M. Ebner, Im Schatten der Groen: Kleine Erzhlfiguren im
Markusevangelium,BZ44(2000):5676.
54
SoSchenke,Markusevangelium,253regardingMk12:35ff.Forthesignificanceofthetitlecf.e.g.
Gnilka,MarkusII,110.
55
YarbroCollins,Mark,511,writes:AlthoughBartimaeushadnotheardthatteachingasacharacter
inthenarrative,theaudiencesknowthattofollowJesusonthewaymeanstofollowhimtosuffering
anddeath.

15:21),56atleastindirectlyrelatedtotheMarkanchurch:Althoughnotmuchmoreis
saidabouthimthanthathecarriedthecrossofChrist,accordingtoMk8:34,itits
exactlywhatisexpectedofatruediscipleofJesus.57
Inparticular,though,intheencounterbetweenChrist,whoisonhiswaytohisdeath,
andthenamelesswomaninMk14:39inBethany,whoanointsJesusbodywith
costlyoilfortheburial(Mk14:8)withoutanyspectacularandexplicitconfession,
shows by the reaction and interpretation of her deed that here is an appropriate
understanding of Christ.58 In this respect, it would appear that the women who,
accordingtoMk16:1,attemptedtoanointJesus afterhisdeath wereratherfoolish
andmisguided.59
6.TheCrucifiedOneandtheSilenceofGod
Onlyintheactualpassionnarrativearethesofarrecognizedthreadsbroughttogether
andrevealthecrucialanswersfortheincreasinglyclearerquestions:HowcanJesus
beunderstoodastheChrist,thatis,MessiahandSonofGod,whenhesoclearlyis
movingtowardshissufferingandcross?Whatdoesthismeanforthemessageabout
theruleofGod,whichissocloselyrelatedtoJesusdeedsandwords?
With the chief priests and scribes decision to kill Jesus (Mk 14:1), the already
mentionedanointingforburialinBethany(Mk14:39),andJudasdecisiontohand
Jesusover(Mk14:1011)theroadisclearedforthepassion.
MoredistinctthanintheothergospelsisMarksemphasisonthedepictionoftheSon
ofManinhisabsoluteloneliness,whonowistogoonhisown(Mk14:21),which
was previously already rudimentarily visible and into which only a few minor
characterswereabletobreak.
Thisisachieved,inmyopinion,bythefollowingmeans:
(1)BasedonZech13:7Jesusprophesiesthedispersionofthesheepafterthedeathof
theshepherd(Mk14:27).AlthoughPeteravowstwicethatthiscouldneverhappen
(Mk14:29,31a),towhichalltheothersagree(Mk14:31b),Jesusabandonmentwill
verysoonbecomeevident.Onlytheclosestcircleaccompanieshiminthegardenof
Gethsemane: Peter, James and John. The dramatic request of Jesus: My soul is
deeplygrievedtothepointofdeath;remainhereandkeepwatch(Mk13:34;cf.
14:37,41),eveninthissituation,isgoingtobedisregardedthreetimes.Theclose
intratextuallinktothecentraladmonitionoftheendtimespeechTakeheed,keep
on the alert (Mk 13:33) shows that the events now unfolding are seen as
eschatologicallyrelevant,andthatintheprocessthedisciplesfailinthemostblatant
waypossible.
WiththecaptureofJesusallotherdisciples,exceptPeterwhoisabouttobetrayhim
(Mk 14:6672), disappear from the scene entirely, not by return to the end (cf.
56

SoGnilka, MarkusII,315:Theuseofthenamesonlymakessenseiftheywereknowntothe
church.ThatmeansthatthisSimonwouldlaterbecomeaChristian(translatedfromtheGerman).
57
Very similar, e.g. Gnilka, Markus II, 315. Different here France, Mark, 641: It would be
inappropriate to the narrative context to suggest that Simons taking up the cross in itself
symboliseshispersonallyenteringalifeofdiscipleship
58
Aniceextensiveexegesisofthesceneisofferedbye.g.DuToit,DerabwesendeHerr,7487[lit.].
59
IwouldthereforeagainstDschulnigg,Markusevangelium,37notspeakofathoroughlypositive
viewofthefemaledisciplesinthegospelofMark.

however 16:7). It is only consistent then that the text does not describe them as
recipientsofanykindofvisionoftheresurrected.
(2)Mk14:34leadstoanothertrail:Ifonetakesseriouslytheintertextualrelationto
Ps42:5,10,andidentifiesJesusasthespeakeroftheprayerinthePsalm,thenthe
MarkanJesusisdescribedhereassomeonevirtuallythirstingafterGod,whois
confrontedwiththequestionwhereGodis(Ps42:2,10),andwhohimselfisasking
whyGodhaslefthim(Ps42:9).60 Butbasedonthis,then,afewotherstatements
come tobe seen in adifferent light: The short prayer inMk 14:36is frequently
studiedtodeterminehowfarJesusAbbaaddressreflectsthehistoricalJesusrelation
toGod.61ButseenintheoverallcontextoftheGospelofMarkitcanbeconsideredas
areversaloftherelationshipofGodandJesusasexpressedinGodsspeechesinMk
1:11andMk9:7:62TheonewhoistwiceaddressedbyGodashisbelovedson,now
addressesGodconsequentlyashisfather.ButinthecontextofPs42itisalsoclear,
thatthereis noanswerfromGod:Thefatherappearstohaveforgottenhim(Ps
42:9).63ThatthetextcarriesthisinterpretationisseenbythefactthatJesusevenprays
thisprayertwice(Mk14:39),butinresponseitisonlymentionedthatthedisciples
fellasleepagain(Mk14:40).AtthesametimeanintertextualbridgeisbuildtoMk
15:34,theprayerofthecrucifiedone,whoasksthequestionwhyGodhaslefthim.Of
course,Mk15:34iswithoutadoubtaclearintertextuallinktoPs22.Tofocusalone
ontheintertextuallink,however,obfuscatestheintratextuallinktotheGethsemane
scene.Butiftakenratherseriously,thentheMarkanJesusisdescribedastheonewho
inhispassionhastoendurethesilenceofGod.64Theonewho,accordingtoMk1:13,
isGodappointed,Spiritendowed,andservedbyangels,experiencesinhissuffering
thesilenceofthesameGod,whotwicehascalledhimhisbelovedson.Thatvery
earlyinterpretersofthistextwerealreadyunwillingtoacceptthis,isseeninthe(text
criticallydisputed)LukanparallelLk22:4344,whichdescribesthefearoftheone
prayingindrasticphysicaldetail,buttheappearanceofanangeltostrengthentheone
thusprayingfunctionsasGodsanswer.Itisquiteconsistentwiththisviewthenthat
thelinktoPs22alsodiminishes.

60

Similar also Feneberg, Jude Jesus, 325. St.P. AhearneKroll, The Psalms of Lament in Marks
Passion (MSSNTS142;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007),6669,18186alsofinds
linkstoPs41:5,11,bywhich,inhisopinion,Ps41and42formthebackdropofthetext;thushereads
theentiresceneinthelightofPs41f.
61
Cf.nowG.Schelbert,ABBAVater:DerliterarischeBefundvomAltaramischenbiszudenspten
Midrasch und HaggadaWerken in Auseinandersetzung mit den Thesen von Joachim Jeremias
(NTOA/StUNT81,Goettingen:Vandenhoek&Ruprecht,2011).
62
FortheGethsemanesceneascontrasttothetransfigurationsceneinMarkcf.alsoGuttenberger,
Gottesvorstellung,191f.,whocorrectlywrites:Jesus,incontrasttothetransfigurationscene,isnot
changedintoabeingofthedivinerealm,butintooneoftherealmofthedead.Thedesignationas
sonisreciprocatedinaddressingGodasAbba(translatedfromtheGerman).
63
Quitedifferentandtherefore,inmyopinion,notfullyappreciatingthedramaticqualityofthe
sceneisFeneberg, JudeJesus,327:IntheGethsemanesceneJesusexperiencesafiascowithhis
threeclosestfriends.Theyfailhiminhisworsthour.Heisleftentirelyalone;alonewithGod.Jesus
prayerinthissituationandhistotalsurrendertothewillofGodgiveaninsightintoJesusunique
relationshipwiththefather.Alone,withoutanyhumansupport,butcarriedalongbythesafeassurance
ofGodswill,JesusentersintotheconflictwiththeSanhedrin(translatedfromtheGerman).
64
SimilarthoughtsarealsofoundinGuttenberg,Gottesvorstellung,195209.

Butnoteverythinghasbeensaidyet:TheintertextuallinksintheMarkanpassion
narrativebasicallyanswersthetwo,aboverepeatedquestions:
(1)QuitebriefandeasilyoverlookedarethelinkstothesufferingservantinDeutero
Isaiah:65TheycanbeseenintheinterpretationofJesusdeathduringthelastsupper
(Mk14:24Isa53:1112);66 perhapsalsoinmentioningJesussilencebeforethe
highcouncil(Mk14:61aIsa53:7);67alsoclearlyinthemockingandabuseofthe
samescene(Mk14:65),andlaterintheRomansoldiers(Mk15:19,cf.bothtoIsa
50:6LXX)
(2)ThelinktoPs22ismuchclearerandevenexplicitlymarkedoutinMk15:34:Not
onlydoestheMarkanJesushavethebeginningofthePsalm(Ps22:1)onhislips,the
rathersurprisinginterestinthefateofJesusclothing,onapurelyintratextuallevel
canonlybeexplainedasanintentionalequationoftheexperienceofthecrucifiedone
withthatofthepsalmist(cf.Ps22:18).Inthatregard,themotifoftheshakingof
heads(Mk15:29)couldbeabriefreferencetoPs22:7.However,muchmorevagueis
therelationofthecombinationofMk15:23and36toPs69:21,whichisemphasized
onlyinlatertextsmoreclearly.
Takingbothoftheselinkedtexts seriously,theevangelists arrivesatthedecisive
answertothefirstquestion:thatJesusofNazareth,intheChristologicalconceptof
Mark,isonlyandespeciallyhere,inbeingabandonedbyGod(assufferingservantof
Godinthemanner ofDeuteroIsaiah, andperhaps evenmoresoas thesuffering
righteousoneofPsalm22)proventobetheSonofGod,verifies thecenturions
confessioninMk15:39.WhereasPetersconfessioninMk8:30wouldnotallowfor
thisdecisivelinkinspiteofJesusinstruction(andthereforewassubsequentlyfirmly
rejected), the centurions confession, chiefly in reaction to the death of Jesus, is
adequate.
IwouldthinkthattheMarkancrucifixionscenealsosuppliestheanswertothesecond
question.Thatis,intaking thelinktoPs 22seriouslyandallowingthat thefew
allusionsonthesurfacemeanstheinclusionoftheentirePsalm.Itiswellknownthat
Ps 22 consists of two parts. Ps 22:121 describes the lamentful situation of the
psalmist,fromv.22onwardsthetextunexpectedlyturnstopraisingGod.Then,Ps
22:24f makes clear that God, who appeared so intolerably silent, heard the
lamentationsoftheonepraying(cf.JesusscreamofdeathinMk15:37!)68andhas
provenhimselffaithfultowardshim.
65

OneshouldalsopointoutinthiscontextMk10:45.ForthediscussionofwhetherIsa53playsan
importantroleinthebackground,cf.H.J.B.CobrinkSalvationinMarkin SalvationintheNew
Testament:PerspectivesonSoteriology(ed.J.vanderWatt;NT.S121;Leiden/Boston:Brill,2005),
3366,here5355.
66
Forfurtherreadingseee.g.A.YarbroCollins,FindingMeaningintheDeathofJesus, JR 78
(1998):17596,here177.
67
Butcf.e.g.YarbroCollins, Mark,704,whoidentifiesclearlinkstoPs37:14fLXX(andalsoPs
26:12and34:10LXX),andthusemphasizesthemessianiccomponentsmorestrongly.
68
ForJesusoutcryanditslinkwithPs22cf.AhearneKroll, Psalms,20510,andalsoH.Gese,
Psalm 22 und das Neue Testament: Der lteste Bericht vom Tode Jesu und die Entstehung des
Herrenmahlesin VomSinaizumZion:AlttestamentlicheBeitrgezurbiblischenTheologie (idem;
BEvTh64;2nded;Munich:Kaiser,1984), 180201,here180.Fordifferentinterpretations,e.g.as
apocalypticsigncf.Cuvillier,Kreuzestheologie,119f.

Thustheconfessionofthecenturion,whoiscertainlygentile,standsasasignthatall
theendsoftheearthbegintoturntotheLordandthatallthefamiliesofthe
nationswillworshipbeforehim(Ps22:27).69 Andthisisthenpreciselyhowthe
Lordaskingrules(Ps22:28),andhowtheruleofGod,proclaimedbyJesusfromthe
beginningoftheGospelofMark(Mk1:15),beginstodawn.
In this regard it also becomes clear that the Gospel of Markis not inneed of a
spectacular resurrection scene, inasmuch as everything has basically already been
said:Mk16:18onlyconfirmsJesusrepeatedannouncement(Mk8:31,9:31,10:34,
cf.alsoMk12:10and12:26),andshowsforalasttimealsothefailureofthewomen,
whoweretheonlyonesaccompanyingJesus,witnessinghisdeathfromafar(Mk
14:40;cf.alsothecontrasttothecenturion,whostandsoppositeJesus).
7.Conclusion
TheGospelofMarkcanbereadasanarrativesolutionfortheproblemofhowthe
crucifiedJesusofNazarethcanbeunderstoodastheChristandSonofGod.The
theologicalchallengetorelatetheCrossofChristwiththeGloryofChrist,without
diminishinganyoneofthesetwodimensions,iscloselyrelatedtothequestionofthe
mysteriousestablishmentoftheruleofGod.
(1) Right from the beginning Jesus is described as Gods anointed, whose
proclamationoftheruleofGodiswithauthority,thekindofauthoritythatisseen
inanumberofpowerfuldeeds,especiallyinexorcisms,butalsoinhealingmiracles.
Thesedeedsofpowerattractaneverincreasingmultitudeofpeople,whofirstare
amazed,yetintheendignorant,evenstiffnecked.
(2)JesusmessiahshipandidentityastheSonofGod,andlikewisehisproclamation
ofthekingdomofGodare,despiteJesus public ministry,enshroudedinsecrecy
expressedinthemotifoftheMessianicSecret,towhich,inmyopinion,canalsobe
added the Kingdom of God Secret. Corresponding to this is the lack of
understandingofeventheclosestcirclearoundJesus,whichisultimatelymaintained
eventotheendofthetext.InMarkanthinking,theMessiah,theSonofGod,andthe
KingdomofGodSecretservethepurposethattheChrist,ortheSonofGod,canonly
befullyunderstoodatthecross,andthattheseeminglysilentGodonlythen,when
humanscometothisrealization,proveshimselfasking.Thusthetextsintertextual
linksmustbetakenseriously,especiallythelamentofPs22and69,andlikewisethe
witnessofDeuteroIsaiah:Traditionsofthesufferingrighteousandofthesuffering
servantofGodarewovenintothenarrativeofthetext,soastotellofanddescribe
JesusasChrist,bothasthesufferingrighteousandthegloriousfutureSonofMan
comingtojudge(cf.Dan7:13).70Tocomprehendthiswouldseemcrucial.However,
mostcharactersinthenarrativedonotmanagetodosoatall,oratbestonlypartially.
69

Feneberg,JudeJesus,347,writes:Psalm22isparticularlywellsuitedfortheliterarystructuringof
thelasthoursofJesusonthecross,becauseitnotonlyexpressesthesufferinganddeathofJesusas
thatofthesufferingrighteous,butalsocontainsamessianicprogramforthegentiles(translated
fromtheGerman).
70
ForfurtherreadingseeM.Reichardt, EndgerichtdurchdenMenschensohn?Zureschatologischen
Funktion des Menschensohns im Markusevangelium (SBB 62; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
2009).Fortherespectiveredactionhistoricalbackgroundcf.St.Beyerle,DermitdenWolkendes
Himmels kommt: Untersuchungen zum Traditionsgefge Menschensohn in Gottessohn und
Menschensohn:ExegetischeStudienzuzweiParadigmenbiblischerIntertextualitt,(ed.D.Snger;
BThSt67;NeukirchenVluyn:Neukirchener,2004),152.

ThewalllikemisunderstandingsurroundingJesusisonlybrokenthroughinafew
places,andonlybyafewcharactersimportantminorcharactersculminatinginthe
centurionsconfessionatthecross(Mk15:39),whichessentiallyreplacesthetwice
heardvoiceofGod(Mk1:11and9:7),whoseeminglyissilentduringthepassion.As
agentile, thecenturionatthecrossis,atthesametime the representative ofthe
nations,whocometoworshipGodinthepresenceofthecross;theMarkanJesusis
also,andaboveall,alsounderstoodastheChristandSonofGodforthegentiles.
(3)TheperceptivereaderisveryquicklybeingmadeawarethattheMarkanChrist
fromthebeginningonwardsisheadingtowardthecross:Alreadyinthefirstthree
chapters,throughscatteredmotifsintheconflictstories,apatternemergesinwhich
thedecisiveelementsofthepassionnarrativearealreadyprefigured.Althoughthisis
mostlyhiddenandonlyforeshadowedinconflictsandreactionstoJesusdeedsof
powerinthefirsthalfofthetext,aftertheturningpointofCaesareaPhillipi,three
straightforwardpassionpredictionsaremadetotheinnercircleofthedisciples(Mk
8:3133,9:3032,10:3234),andalsotothoseoutsideinthestoryofthevineyard
tenants (Mk 12:112) albeit only in form of a parable! The predictions of the
comingsuffering,death,andresurrectioneachtimefollowedonlybyrejectionand
lack of understanding, correspond to predictions, often cleverly arranged and
juxtaposedwiththeiroppositemotif,ofthepresentandfutureauthorityandgloryof
theSonofGod,whodescribeshimselfastheSonofMan.
(4)MostimpressiveistheradicalnessbywhichtheGospelofMarkdescribesJesus
way to the cross: On the one side, the gospel shows a Christ who is largely
misunderstoodbyhisdisciplesandthemultitudealike.And,ontheotherside,heis
seenasendowedwiththeSpirit,oftenprayinginsolitude,livingcompletelyoutofhis
relation with God. However, the same God, who explicitly calls Jesus twice his
belovedson(Mk1:11;9:7),issilentwhenJesuscallshimAbba,fatherinthe
agonyofGethsemane,beseechinghiminprayer.Thus,theallusionstoPs42inthe
GethsemanesceneandthevariouslinkstoPs22formaframeworkaroundthecoreof
thepassion,whichontheonesidedescribestheradicalexperienceofabandonmentof
theMarkanChrist,andneverthelesswhentheseintertextsasawholearetakeninto
accountallowthatespeciallyhereinthesilenceofGodGodisunderstoodasthe
salvation and kingdom establishing Lord. When this is understood, it is only
consistentthattheGospelofMarkwouldnotneedaresurrectionscene(inparticular
forthediscipleswho,untiltheend,werelackinginunderstandingandaresleeping
whentheyaresupposedtobewatching).